RPAS - expert interview Q What is your view of the current status of the RPAS market and how do you think it is set to evolve in the future? The RPAS market in Europe is developing very fast. There are approximately 3,000 commercial companies involved, and the market for smaller RPAS (around 25kg and less) in particular is growing very fast. Aside from the military and police, RPAS are already being used for aircraft inspections, meteorological observations and bird control at airports, photography, surveying, infrastructure inspection and agriculture. The rapid growth in RPAS is expected to continue. For me there are parallels to the mobile phone and tablet markets, with the potential for RPAS to be applied to numerous commercial and everyday tasks. For example, why climb up a ladder to check for a leak on a roof when you could use an RPAS with a camera? Q Does the rapid growth of the RPAS market present challenges to the ATM industry? Yes, the rapid growth of RPAS is already presenting challenges to the industry. RPAS and manned aircraft operations need to be safely integrated. To do so a number of principles need to be met, such as RPAS being as safe as, or safer than, current manned operations, no significant changes to the ATM system to accommodate them, and not significantly impacting current airspace users. RPAS behaviour in operations will also have to be transparent to manned aviation, in particular Air Traffic Control (ATC), as ATC will not be able to handle many different types of RPAS contingency procedures effectively. With a rapidly growing RPAS market, what are the challenges facing ATM, what are we doing about them and who is doing what? Mike Lissone explains. May 2015 l N°20 NETALERT - the Safety Nets newsletter CONTENTS 1/2/3 RPAS - expert interview 3/4 RPAS and safety nets - a race against time? 5/6 RPAS - 'Detect and avoid' 7/8 Small RPAS - a unique challenge WELCOME The proliferation and commercial promise shown by Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) has made their successful integration with manned aircraft a high profile issue for ANSPs, regulators and manufacturers around the world. In this issue of NETALERT, Mike Lissone, EUROCONTROL’s RPAS ATM Integration Programme Manager, explains the main challenges facing ATM and some of the work that is taking place to address those challenges. Looking specifically at safety nets, EUROCONTROL’s Stanislaw Drozdowski considers the questions that need to be answered for RPAS. We also look at the subject of RPAS and ‘collision avoidance’ in its broadest sense – how does an RPAS pilot undertake ‘see and avoid’ when the RPA is beyond visual range, and what solutions are there to stop the smallest RPAS causing disruption and damage to aviation and wider society? Mike Lissone Mike Lissone is the RPAS ATM Integration Programme Manager for EUROCONTROL and has worked on the subject for over 15 years. Mike provides policy support to the European Commission regarding technical RPAS integration issues, and was seconded to the SESAR JU for the development of the RPAS definition phase. He is the Secretary General for the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS) and is actively involved in the ICAO RPAS Panel and other international initiatives. Network Manager nominated by the European Commission
8
Embed
NETALERT - the Safety Nets newsletter RPAS - expert interview · European Commission: a roadmap for the integration of civil RPAS into the European ... RPAS - expert interview continued
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
RPAS - expert interview
Q What is your view of the current
status of the RPAS market and how
do you think it is set to evolve in the
future?
The RPAS market in Europe is developing
very fast. There are approximately 3,000
commercial companies involved, and the
market for smaller RPAS (around 25kg and
less) in particular is growing very fast.
Aside from the military and police, RPAS are
already being used for aircraft inspections,
meteorological observations and bird
control at airports, photography, surveying,
infrastructure inspection and agriculture.
The rapid growth in RPAS is expected to
continue. For me there are parallels to the
mobile phone and tablet markets, with
the potential for RPAS to be applied to
numerous commercial and everyday tasks.
For example, why climb up a ladder to check
for a leak on a roof when you could use an
RPAS with a camera?
Q Does the rapid growth of the RPAS
market present challenges to the
ATM industry?
Yes, the rapid growth of RPAS is already
presenting challenges to the industry.
RPAS and manned aircraft operations need
to be safely integrated. To do so a number
of principles need to be met, such as RPAS
being as safe as, or safer than, current
manned operations, no significant changes
to the ATM system to accommodate them,
and not significantly impacting current
airspace users. RPAS behaviour in operations
will also have to be transparent to manned
aviation, in particular Air Traffic Control
(ATC), as ATC will not be able to handle
many different types of RPAS contingency
procedures effectively.
With a rapidly growing RPAS market, what are the challenges facing ATM, what are we doing about
them and who is doing what? Mike Lissone explains.
May 2015 l N°20NETALERT - the Safety Nets newsletter
CONTENTS1/2/3 RPAS - expert interview3/4 RPAS and safety nets - a race against time?5/6 RPAS - 'Detect and avoid'7/8 Small RPAS - a unique challenge
WELCOME
The proliferation and commercial promise shown by Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) has made their successful integration with manned aircraft a high profile issue for ANSPs, regulators and manufacturers around the world.
In this issue of NETALERT, Mike Lissone, EUROCONTROL’s RPAS ATM Integration Programme Manager, explains the main challenges facing ATM and some of the work that is taking place to address those challenges.
Looking specifically at safety nets, EUROCONTROL’s Stanislaw Drozdowski considers the questions that need to be answered for RPAS. We also look at the subject of RPAS and ‘collision avoidance’ in its broadest sense – how does an RPAS pilot undertake ‘see and avoid’ when the RPA is beyond visual range, and what solutions are there to stop the smallest RPAS causing disruption and damage to aviation and wider society?
Mike Lissone
Mike Lissone is the RPAS ATM Integration Programme Manager
for EUROCONTROL and has worked on the subject for over 15
years. Mike provides policy support to the European Commission
regarding technical RPAS integration issues, and was seconded to
the SESAR JU for the development of the RPAS definition phase. He
is the Secretary General for the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on
Unmanned Systems (JARUS) and is actively involved in the ICAO
RPAS Panel and other international initiatives.
Network Managernominated bythe European Commission
Q What are some of the key challenges
in integrating RPAS and manned
aircraft?
Most RPAS operations are presently taking
place below 500 feet. This means safely
integrating RPAS with other airspace users like
military aircraft, helicopters, general aviation,
other recreational users and aircraft operating
around airports. Two of the key challenges
are enabling the RPAS pilot to detect hazards,
including other aircraft, and making RPAS
detectable to other airspace users.
Today, the foundation for operations in
uncontrolled airspace is based upon ‘see and
avoid’. Therefore, to safely integrate RPAS in this
environment, the pilot of an RPAS operating
beyond visual line of sight will need a
capability analogous to the human’s means of
detecting hazards like other aircraft, obstacles,
terrain and severe weather conditions by sight.
At the same time, the 2012 EASA scoping
Improvements to 'See and Avoid' for General
Aviation (SISA) study identified that ‘see and
avoid’ has its limitations. The technology
required for RPAS to undertake ‘see and avoid’
has been called ‘detect and avoid’ (this is the
subject of our third article).
A second big issue under investigation is
how to make RPAS detectable to other
airspace users. In particular, the smaller ones
operating below 500 feet are not detectable
by other aircraft and should always give
way to manned aircraft. Several technical
solutions are being investigated, one of
which is equipping RPAS with a Mode S or
ADS-B transponder. This would certainly
make them more detectable by other
airspace users capable of detecting these
transponders, but does the European CNS
infrastructure have the capacity for this?
Already several States have a limited tracking
capability and increasing the number of
transponders to track RPAS could push this
to the limit and subsequently negatively
impact the network.
Q What work is currently taking place
to manage the ATM aspects of RPAS?
Various institutions and bodies are involved
in the planning for RPAS integration, working
on topics such as harmonising regulations,
developing standards, undertaking research
and maintaining the European integration
roadmap. See text box.
Q What can ANSPs do today to
enhance safety and minimise risk
in relation to RPAS?
From the workshops held with States, I’d say
that the majority of European ANSPs need to
catch up on RPAS.
2NETALERT Newsletter May 2015
RPAS - expert interviewcontinued
National regulations need to be harmonised.
RPAS below an operating mass of 150kg are
regulated by National Aviation Authorities
(NAAs) and those above are regulated by
EASA. Less than half of European states
currently have RPAS regulations, and those
in place are not harmonised, meaning that
an RPAS permitted to operate or undertake
a particular activity in one State cannot
automatically do so in another.
There is also a learning curve for the ATM and
RPAS sectors to work together. For example,
the innovative nature of the RPAS industry
means we are already seeing a keenness to put
RPAS applications into use more quickly, and
not necessarily taking the same steps that we
would traditionally take in the ATM industry.
Q In today’s airspace, can RPAS and
manned aircraft operate together?
Our mantra has been integration not
accommodation. Today, we are able to
accommodate any RPAS by increasing the
horizontal and vertical separation criteria.
Doing this for a single RPAS has minimal
impact on the Network. However, when
there are many more RPAS wanting to
be accommodated, applying enlarged
separation criteria will have a negative
impact on the Network as other aircraft will
be denied access.
■ ICAO: a Manual on Remotely Piloted
Aircraft Systems (Doc 10019) was recently
published and SARPs are under development.
The first SARPs release is envisaged for 2018
but is not expected to include collision
avoidance. ICAO has also released a web-
based RPAS iKit providing access to material
produced by ICAO, international and national
organisations (http://cfapp.icao.int/tools/ikit/
rpasikit/story.html).■ European Commission: a roadmap for
the integration of civil RPAS into the European
Aviation System has been published. The
recent European Commission Declaration on
drones can be accessed at www.ec.europa.
eu/transport/modes/air/news/2015-03-06-
drones_en.htm.■ JARUS: the Joint Authorities for
Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems is
a worldwide group of experts from the
National Aviation Authorities and regional
aviation safety organizations. Its purpose
is to recommend a single set of technical,
safety and operational requirements for the
certification and safe integration of UAS into
airspace and at aerodromes, and provide
guidance material aiming to facilitate each
authority to write their own requirements.■ EASA: is responsible for regulating RPAS
when used for civil applications and with
an operating mass of 150kg or more, and
also chairs JARUS. EASA recently published
a ‘Concept of Operations for Drones’ that
proposes regulating RPAS in three categories
– ‘open’, ‘specific’ and ‘certified’. These
categories take into account factors such
as purpose/complexity of use, operating
height, if the RPAS is being operated Beyond
Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) etc.■ EUROCONTROL: has responsibility for the
ATM part of RPAS integration across Europe.
As part of this EUROCONTROL is supporting
its Member States on how to integrate RPAS
operations.■ SESAR: is addressing the R&D
requirements related to RPAS integration
into the European civil aviation system. This
currently includes 9 demonstration projects. ■ EUROCAE: working groups 73 (large
RPAS) and 93 (light RPAS operations) are
working on industry standards.■ National regulators: A number of national
regulators have developed RPAS regulations.
For example, the UK CAA has published CAP
722 Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in
UK Airspace – Guidance.
Work by institutions and industry bodies to manage the ATM aspects of RPAS
3 NETALERT Newsletter May 2015
ANSPs need to have a close look at how
RPAS operations below 500 feet impact
their FIR. General aviation and other airspace
users below 500 feet need to have sufficient
information to plan a safe flight. However, it
is of course impossible to provide ATC at that
altitude and airspace classification will also
have an impact. Several States are already
working with a web based application that
RPAS operators can use to file for flight
approval. Once approval is acquired, the RPAS
operator is provided with the necessary data
(e.g. weather, NOTAMs etc), and the manned
aircraft community is given information
about the intended RPAS operation.
There are new opportunities for ANPSs to
contribute to the development of RPAS-
specific products such as more detailed
weather forecasting and RPAS NOTAMs.
NASA is developing a SWIM type traffic
management system using the 4G network,
where all RPAS communicate with each
other. Russia has already developed an
airborne network based on ADS-B, where
all RPAS are used as information nodes and
communicate with each other and other
manned aircraft. It also provides ‘detect and
avoid’ as all aircraft are equipped.
RPAS - expert interviewcontinued
RPAS and safety nets – a race against time?Introduction
If RPAS are to be integrated with manned aircraft
operations, what will happen when there is loss
of separation involving an RPAS? Are existing
ATM safety nets compatible with RPAS? Will
RPAS carry collision avoidance systems and will
this be ACAS? EUROCONTROL safety nets expert
Stanislaw Drozdowski provides an overview
of the current situation and the questions that
need answering – quickly!
RPAS and ground-based safety nets
To be fully supported by ground-based
safety nets such as Short Term Conflict Alert
(STCA), RPAS will have to be detectable
by surveillance equipment and carry a
transponder. The SESAR RPAS Demonstration
projects considered the carriage of
transponders on RPAS to be essential and
indeed, the fitting of transponders is assumed
within the European Commission’s RPAS
integration roadmap for all classifications of
airspace. At the same time, RPAS tend to be
smaller than typical manned aircraft and they
are often made of composite material rather
than metal. This may restrict the carriage
of transponders and impede the ability of
primary radars to detect them. So the fitting
of transponders may not be straightforward.
The influence of RPAS performance
on existing ground-based safety nets
algorithms is also an interesting question.
RPAS performance characteristics vary
greatly and are generally significantly
different from commercial airliners. Ground-
based safety nets warning times and
associated trajectory prediction algorithms
may have to be adapted to take into
account such flight characteristics. This is
something EUROCONTROL and SESAR have
begun analysing using fast-time simulation
methodology.
Will a controller be able to communicate
with an RPAS pilot in the same way as a
manned aircraft pilot? Operating remotely
either using ground based radio transmitters
or satellite communication has the potential
UAS/UAV/RPAS
UAS is the ICAO term for the family of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and it encompasses
Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS). RPAS consists of a set of configurable
elements including a remotely-piloted aircraft (RPA), its associated remote pilot station(s),
the required command and control links and any other system elements as may be
required, at any point during flight operation;
Autonomous UAS is a possible future category. These are automatically programmed
to fly a predefined flight path but without a pilot in charge, even remotely. Note that the
term Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) has been replaced by UAS and is now therefore
obsolete according to ICAO (Cir 328).
ESA User/Stakeholder Workshop on RPAS
21st May 2015 at the ESA ESTEC Centre, in Noordwijk (The Netherlands)
Key objectives of the workshop: To present the preliminary findings of the 2nd element
of the joint ESA-EDA RPAS demonstration initiative (DeSIRE2) and to inform attendees on
other EDA and ESA RPAS related activities.
Who should attend: Participation is particularly encouraged from ESA and EDA
(participating) Member States, users, service providers, technology providers and policy
makers who are willing to get informed and involved in the RPAS domain.
Registration and logistics: The event will be free of charge. Registration is now open.
will be little difference in the ability of pilots
to follow ATC instructions whether they are
on-board the aircraft or operating remotely.
This is supported by the initial findings from
the SESAR RPAS Demonstration projects,
where integration trials found little impact in
the cruise phase of flight, but found potential
implications during approach phases of flight
where latency issues had more of an impact.
The ASTREA programme in the UK found
that when using satellite communications,
latency issues meant RPAS operations were
only feasible in low ATC workload situations.
Airborne safety nets
Will RPAS need to carry a collision avoidance
system? Everything from the ICAO RPAS
Manual to material produced by States
certainly points to the need for RPAS flying in
non-segregated airspace to carry a collision
avoidance system. This is backed up by
recent experience. Lack of ACAS capability
was seen as a significant obstacle to the
certification of the Euro Hawk, which was
eventually cancelled.
Will the collision avoidance system carried by
RPAS be ACAS? The European Commission
Implementing Rule mandating the carriage
of ACAS II version 7.1 on turbine-powered
aircraft with a maximum certificated take-off
mass exceeding 5,700 kg does not apply to
unmanned aircraft. Similarly, examination of
the ICAO ACAS Manual suggests there is no
basis for interpreting the ICAO requirement
to fit ACAS to manned aircraft above this
weight as a requirement to do so for RPAS.
Could an RPAS carry ACAS? Payload
restrictions or technical limitations aside,
ACAS was not designed for installation on
RPAS. Nevertheless, safety analysis of ACAS
on Global Hawk using airspace encounter
models found that, although Global Hawks
flight characteristics and communication
latency reduced the effectiveness of
RPAS and safety nets – a race against time?continued
TCAS, it still provided a significant safety
improvement over a Mode S transponder
alone.
If not ACAS, what type of collision avoidance
system will be carried? There are no specific
RPAS collision avoidance systems available
on the market at present. A variant of ACAS X,
ACAS Xu is envisaged for unmanned aircraft
systems and some proof-of-concept trials
have already taken place. Collision avoidance
could also be an element of ‘detect and
avoid’ systems (see next article). Whichever
route is chosen, these systems will need to
be interoperable with current ACAS/TCAS,
particularly as the performance and flight
characteristics of RPAS may mean they do not
conform to existing profiles communicated
as part of an ACAS Resolution Advisory.
When the Mid Air Collision Avoidance
System (MIDCAS) program analysed how
their ‘detect and avoid’ solution interacted
with TCAS during simulations and flight trials
they found that the trials enabled a more
compatible design to be implemented.
There are still more questions: Should the
collision avoidance system carried by an
RPAS operate autonomously? If not, the
communications relay to the remote pilot
needs to be robust and enable the remote
pilot to react in sufficient time. But what if
the communication link is lost between the
aircraft and remote pilot? Should the RPA
be regarded as being faulty, or should it be
allowed to autonomously undertake collision
avoidance? Will any proposed RPAS collision
avoidance solution be financially viable?
Early trials assessing the impact of RPAS on collision avoidance systems used fast-time simulations in order analyse a number of potential scenarios. However, EUROCONTROL recognised that there were some limitations with the simulations and so analysis from the end of 2015 will be performed on the new EUROCONTROL Collision Avoidance Fast-Time Evaluation (CAFÉ) platform.
The platform is a software simulation package that can be tailored to exercise and test various collision avoidance concepts. The model will be adapted to both airborne and ground-based applications.
A number of applications are envisaged, including: ■ ACAS X ■ ACAS compatibility study ■ RPAS collision avoidance
The platform will reuse some previously developed components, such as the EUROCONTROL Interactive
Collision Avoidance Simulator (InCAS). The platform should become operational later in 2015.
We are looking to regulatory authorities to
provide some of the answers, but the rate of
growth of RPAS means time is of the essence.
Although regulatory frameworks for RPAS
have been established in some countries,
the overarching regulations and standards
are still being developed by national and
international bodies such as ICAO, JARUS (on
behalf of EASA) and EUROCAE. It is currently
expected that the ICAO RPAS SARPs planned
for release in 2018 will not include collision
avoidance.
Conclusion
Collision avoidance systems for RPAS, and
compatibility with existing ATM safety nets,
are clear requirements and potential barriers
to the integration of civil and military RPAS
into non-segregated airspace. The challenges
are wide-ranging, including interoperability
with existing airborne and ground based
safety nets, the physical ability of RPAS
to carry and power collision avoidance
systems, the wide ranging performance
characteristics of different RPAS and if/
how RPAS should undertake autonomous
collision avoidance if communication is lost
with the remote pilot. In addition to collision
avoidance, we are also seeing a need for
systems to provide the remote pilot with a
‘detect and avoid’ capability for operations
beyond the line of sight.
With so many potential uses for RPAS, we
are faced with a race against time to have
suitable collision avoidance systems in place
when these applications reach maturity.
EUROCONTROL collision avoidance platform
5 NETALERT Newsletter May 2015
‘See and avoid’
ICAO Annex 2 lays out ‘The Rules of the Air’,
which states that:
“An aircraft shall not be operated in such
proximity to other aircraft as to create a
collision hazard”.
An RPAS pilot operating within line of sight
of an RPA can typically achieve this without
the requirement for sensors on the aircraft
using the principle of ‘see and avoid’ (SAA).
However, those RPAS pilots operating
beyond visual line of sight must have an
alternative means to implement the Rules
of the Air in all classifications of airspace –
referred to as ‘detect and avoid’ (DAA).
‘Detect and avoid’
RPAS must be capable of detecting
both cooperative and non-cooperative
targets and taking action to manoeuvre
appropriately. To do this a ‘detect and avoid’
system is needed that is able to achieve an
equivalent or better level of safety as SAA in
manned aircraft. This must be achieved in all
flight conditions, day and night.
As with airborne collision avoidance systems
on RPAS, one of the challenges for the
developers of DAA systems has been a lack
of regulatory standards and requirements.
Also, the extent to which the RPAS should
be capable of autonomous ‘detect and
avoid’ in the event that communication is
lost with the pilot needs to be considered
- in uncontrolled airspace pilots decide
what is required to achieve an acceptable
safe distance from other airspace users. If
an RPAS is to have a degree of autonomy,
guidelines on acceptable safe distances
may be necessary.
‘Detect and avoid’ for cooperative targets
The detection of cooperative targets with
Mode S transponders and/or ADS-B is
relatively straightforward, provided the RPAS
has the payload and power requirements
required. The challenge here is to
develop appropriate detection avoidance
algorithms.
The ASTREA programme has completed
a number of trials using ADS-B as the
cooperative sensor. The sensor proved
highly reliable and typically detected threats
earlier than 6 minutes from the closest point
of approach and provided sufficient time to
implement the rules of the air.
A Mode S interrogator plus ADS-B receiver
(linked to a DAA processor) is being
trialled as part of the ATM Innovative RPAS
Integration for Coastguard Applications
(AIRICA) – see next page. The DAA system
enables automatic evasive action (by
implementing the rules of the air) should
the pilot not take appropriate action.
RPAS ‘Detect and avoid’
In controlled airspace, safe separation will be provided by RPAS operators complying with Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures and instructions. In
uncontrolled airspace RPAS operators will need to be capable of applying the “rules of the air” based on his/her situational awareness. How will the RPAS
pilot do this if the RPA is operating beyond the visual line of sight?
‘Detect and avoid’ and the ATM barrier model simplified
DAA systems are intended to provide traffic avoidance for the ‘see and avoid’ part of the
barrier model, as opposed to collision avoidance. However, while airborne safety nets and
‘see and avoid’ are two distinct barriers in the model, and there may be separate systems
providing each capability on RPAS, it could be argued that both rely on technology and are
powered by the RPAS, and therefore the barriers become less distinct.
Small RPAS weighing less than 25kg are undergoing rapid growth, with industry research experts Frost and Sullivan estimating over 200,000 drones were sold
each month in 2014. Although no more than the weight of a small child, this size of small RPAS could still cause damage to a manned aircraft or non-aviation
infrastructure. At the same time they are hard to detect and too small to carry transponders or ACAS-like collision avoidance systems. Our final article looks at
the problems associated with small RPAS, and the range of solutions proposed to prevent damage and disruption to aviation and wider society.
This document is published by EUROCONTROL for information purposes. It may be copied in whole or in part, provided that EUROCONTROL is mentioned as the source andto the extent justified by the non-commercial use (not for sale). The information in this document may not be modified without prior written permission from EUROCONTROL.